Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07131993 - H.7 H. 7 Contra �'" Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 17, 1993 SUBJECT: OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request. 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the General Plan Amendment. 3. Close the public hearing and either: (a) Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation to DENY the general plan amendment request; or should the Board be so inclined, (b) APPROVE the General.Plan Amendment and to direct staff to include it in one of the consolidated general plan amendments for 1993, FISCAL IMPACT This is a County-initiated project for which the major costs of the plan amendment have already been absorbed. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS This plan amendment request is in direct response to Board direction for the provision of a senior housing project in the Oakley area. The Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment was recommended for DENIAL by the East County Regional Planning Commission, by a -1 vote, on June 7, 1993. Although the Commission recommended denial, it was thought that thi pr oes have many merits, but the site was not appropriate. �TU CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ,RYES SIGNATIJ­ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDAu6&4W—BOARD 0WMITTEE —APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON 7 13 9 3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See Addendum A for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT 1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES:— NOES:— ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Staff Contact: Matt Tomas July 13 , 1993 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Deputy, Clerk of the Board CAO's Redevelopment Agency By 1A.10Y 4 Dept,of Public Works OMAC s, Report on Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment Continued - page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDAT10N In October 1991, Supervisor Torlakson requested that the County begin the process which would result in.the provision of senior housing in the Oakley area (See Attachment A - Board Order date October 15, 1991). In response to this request, the Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee created a subcommittee known as Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing (CASH) and in August, 1992 issued a formal report, which examined in more detail, the need for senior housing in the Oakley area. This report generally finds that there is a very high demand for senior housing in the Oakley area yet none is being created by the housing market to fill this need. In early 1993, the OMAC began working with the County Redevelopment Agency staff to begin the process for site acquisition and development of an actual senior housing project. The Redevelopment Agency then initiated discussions with Ecumenical Association for Housing, a non-profit housing development organization which is based in the Bay Area. The discussions which were held with the nonprofit developer included talks regarding site acquisition and assistance in funding for this project. Following these discussions, an intensive site selection effort proceeded which resulted in an agreement to purchase the property within the pian amendment area for purposes of developing a senior housing project. The County Redevelopment Agency and nonprofit developer are now seeking a general plan amendment to allow the creation of 50 clustered, senior housing units. Recent Actions - The Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee, at its June 14, 1993 meeting, voted to allocate $338,347 from the Low and Moderate Income Set-Aside Fund for this project. These monies are generated from the Oakley Redevelopment Project Area tax increment and may be used for any project which expands the stock of affordable housing. The recommendation regarding allocation of the Set Aside monies was just recently approved by the Board at their June 22, 1993 meeting by a unanimous vote. These funds not only shows the County's committment in this project, but will also be used as seed money to help the non-profit housing developer secure additional financial_ assistance in the form Federal Housing & Urban Development 202 grant monies and Federal low-income Housing Tax Credits. A'P'BµH041 '"A r TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �,(�S� ' FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson 'tra Costa DATE: October 15, 1991 County SUBJECT: REQUEST HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THE CONCEPT OF A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY IN THE OAKLEY AREA SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommended Action: Refer to the Housing Authority the concept of providing a low-income senior housing facility in Oakley. Request representatives of the Housing Authority to meet with the Oakley . Municipal Advisory Council to discuss the feasibility of establishing such a facility in the Oakley area and the process required to establish it. In addition, work with the Council to identify potential sites, and potential funding sources. Background Information: The waiting list for low-income senior housing in East County is extensive, with an estimated waiting period of five to seven years. The process to establish a senior facility is time-consuming as well. Members of the Oakley community have contacted me and expressed their interest in providing a facility similar to that of Stoneman Village (Pittsburg) in the Oakley area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURES RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) v ACTION OF BOARD ON -Ortnhar 22. 1 CM APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER .X _ The Board APPROVED the above recommendation, and added referral to the Deputy Director of Redevelopment. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS _y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Housing Authority ATTESTED nrrnhPr ')') 19g1 Oakley Redevelopment Staff via Dist V Phil Batchelor,Clerk-of the Board'ot-- Oakley Municipal Advisory Councilvia Dist.V Supmrv=and C=*AdmiaistrW,: : Deputy Director of Redevelopment M34a/7•83 BY DEPUTY ADDENDUM A .This is the time heretofore noticed for hearing on the recommendation of the East County Regional Planning Commission on a proposed General Plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation for a 1 . 92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5 . 0 - 7 . 2 units/net acre) to Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density (30 . 0 - 44 . 9 units/net acre) . The proposed plan amendment would support up to 50 senior housing units . (5-93-EC) in the Oakley area. Jim Cutler, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the proposed amendment, commented on the East County Regional Planning Commission' s recommendation for denial of the proposed amendment, and he commented on the above staff recommendations. Carol Norris, Redevelopment Agency, explained the involvement of the Redevelopment Agency as a result of a Board Order in 1991 and she also commented on the various senior housing available and the possible sites that had been looked at for this proposed senior housing project . Ms . Norris requested the Board' s support for this General Plan amendment . The public hearing was opened and the following persons spoke : Lamar Turner, 469 E. Francisco Boulevard, Suite B, San Rafael, representing Ecumenical Association for Housing, spoke in favor of the proposed amendment and described the proposed senior housing project . Tim Van Meter, Van Meter, Williams, Pollak, made an architecture presentation. Patti Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, representing Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor of the proposed project . Janette Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor. Sonny Escadero, 701 Domaine Court, Oakley, representing Oakley Municipal Advisory Council, spoke in favor. James Pate, 5116 Sandmound, Oakley, Delta Youth Center Project, spoke in favor. Craig Williams, 1359 Port Court, Oakley, spoke in favor. Rodger McKeon, 5140 Kegan Lane, Oakley, spoke in opposition. Nordyn Anderson, no address given, spoke in favor. Cheri Budesilich, 819 Walnut Drive, Oakley, Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing, spoke in favor. Richard Lujan, 837 Arnold Drive, Martinez, United Council of Spanish Speaking Organizations, spoke in support of the project . Bev Novarina, 1629 Carpenter Road, Oakley, Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing, spoke on emergency services for seniors and in support of the project . Bob Kratina, 320 Woodview Place, Oakley, spoke in support of the proposed amendment . The following persons submitted comments in support or expressing concerns : Marie Woods, 201 Gamay, Oakley, in support . Lucille Kretschmer, 326 E. Ruby Street, Oakley, in support . 4 Ray Novarina, 1629 Carpenter Road, Oakley, in support . Marie Bernadette Escudero, 701 Domaine Court, Oakley, in support . Tom McGrane, 500 Windsor Court, Oakley, expressed concerns . Warren Jensen, 5181 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns . Victoria Payne, 2209 Ventnor Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns . Patricia Jensen, 5181 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns . Tammy McKeon, 5140 Kegan Lane, Oakley, expressed concerns . Lamar Turner spoke in rebuttal and requested approval of the General Plan amendment . The public hearing was closed. Supervisor Torlakson recommended that the Board act favorably on the General Plan amendment and commented that the integration of this project with the neighborhood both visually and in any kind of program or social integration is very important . Supervisor Torlakson moved approval of the General Plan amendment . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that Resolution No. 93/430 in the matter of the. Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93- EC) is ADOPTED. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 13, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak, Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 93/430 SUBJECT: In the Matter of the ) Oakley Senior Housing ) General Plan Amendment ) The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES that: There is filed with this Board and its Clerk a copy of Resolution No. 24-1993, adopted by the East County Regional Planning Commission, which discusses a General Plan Amendment for the Oakley Senior Housing (#5-93-EC). On July 13, 1993, the Board held a hearing on the said General Plan Amendment discussed by the East County Regional Planning Commission Resolution 24-1993. Notice of said hearing was duly given in the manner required by law. The Board, at the hearings, called for testimony of all persons interested in this matter. After taking testimony, the Board closed the public hearing and APPROVED the General Plan Amendment as recommended by staff and directed staff to include the Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment in one of the consolidated general plan amendments as allowed by State Planning Law. The Board of Supervisors also APPROVED the Negative Declaration on the project as adequate for County purposes. 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Sup isor on the date shown. ATTESTED: PHIL TCH JR,dark of the Board of upervisor nd County p7lstraor BY v Dent tv Mst/OsldeySr.res RESOLUTION 93/430 Contra TO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa FROM: HARVEY E.BRAGDON County DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 17,1993 SUBJECT: OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Open public hearing and receive testimony on proposed plan amendment request. 2. Certify as adequate the Negative Declaration on this project for purposes of acting on the General Plan Amendment. 3. Close the public hearing and either: (a) Uphold the East County Regional Planning Commission's recommendation to DENY the general plan amendment request;or should the Board be so inclined, (b) APPROVE the General Plan Amendment and to direct staff to Include It in one of the consolidated general plan amendments for 1993. FI.RrAl-IMPACT This Is a County4hitiated project for which the major costs of the plan amendment have already been absorbed. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDA11ONS This plan amendment request is in direct response to Board direction for the provision of a senior housing project In the Oakley area. The Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment was recommended for DENIAL by the East County Regional Planning Commission, by a -1 vote, on June 7, 1993. Although the Commission recommended denial,it was thought that thil pr oes have many merits,but the site was not appropriate. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -[YES SIGNATU RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDABOARD C61QMFiiE- _APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S), ACTION OF BOARD ON— APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT i TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES:_ NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN:— MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Staff Contact: Matt Tomas Orig:Community Development Department ATTESTED cc: Deputy, Clerk of the Board CAO's Redevelopment Agency Dept,of Public Works OMAC Report on Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment •.q Continued-page 2 BACKGROUNDIRF.AgONS FOR RECOMMENDATION In October 1991, Supervisor Torlakson requested that the County begin the process which would result in the provision of senior housing in the Oakley area(See Attachment A - Board Order date October 15, 1991). In response to this request,the Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee created a subcommittee known as Citizens for Affordable Senior Housing(CASH)and in August, 1992 issued a formal report,which examined in more detail,the need for senior housing in the Oakley area. This report generally finds that there is a very high demand for senior housing in the Oakley area yet none is being created by the housing market to fill this need. In early 1993,the OMAC began working with the County Redevelopment Agency staff to begin the process for site acquisition and development of an actual senior housing project. The Redevelopment Agency then initiated discussions with Ecumenical Association for Housing, a non-profit housing development organization which is based in the Bay Area. The discussions which were held with the nonprofit developer included talks regarding site acquisition and assistance in funding for this project. Following these discussions, an intensive site selection effort proceeded which resulted in an agreement to purchase the property within the plan amendment area for purposes of developing a senior housing project. The County Redevelopment Agency and nonprofit developer are now seeking a general plan amendment to allow the creation of 50 clustered,senior housing units. Recent Actions-The Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee, at its June 14, 1993 meeting, voted to allocate $338,347 from the Low and Moderate Income Set-Aside Fund for this project. These monies are generated from the Oakley Redevelopment Project Area tax increment and may be used for any project which expands the stock of affordable housing. The recommendation regarding allocation of the Set Aside monies was just recently approved by the Board at their June 22., 1993 meeting by a unanimous vote. These funds not only shows the County's committment in this project,but will also be used as seed money to help the non-profit housing developer secure additional financial assistance in the: form Federal Housing & Urban Development 202 grant monies and Federal low-income Housing Tax Credits. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 5� l Contra FROM: Supervisor Tom Torlakson WJIa DATE: October 15, 1991 County SUBJECT: REQUEST HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PURSUE THE CONCEPT OF A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY IN THE OAKLEY AREA SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION Recommended Action: Refer to the Housing Authority the . concept of providing a low-income senior housing facility in Oakley. Request representatives of the Housing Authority to meet with the Oakley . Municipal Advisory Council to discuss the feasibility of establishing such a facility in the Oakley area and the process required to establish it. In addition, work with the Council to identify potential sites, and potential funding sources. Background Information: The waiting list for low-income senior housing in East County is extensive, with an estimated waiting period of five to seven years. The process to establish a senior facility is time-consuming as well. Members of the Oakley community have contacted me and expressed their interest in providing a facility similar to that of Stoneman Village (Pittsburg) in the Oakley area. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTf YES SIGNATURE? RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON --Ortnhor 99. 1 QQ1 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X The Board APPROVED the above recommendation, and added referral to the Deputy Director of Redevelopment. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS y UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Housing Authority ATTESTED nrtnhar 11 1991 Oakley Redevelopment Staff via Dist V Phil Batchelor,Clerk-of the Board'of- Oakley Municipal Advisory Councilvia Dist.V SUpervis=and CouatyAdmioistt.fat:: : Deputy Director of Redevelopment � �� • M34a/7.63 BY DEPUTY Resolution No. 24-1993 RESOLUTION OF THE EAST COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT#5-93-CO,FOR THE OAKLEY AREA. WHEREAS, the County initiated a proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the County General Plan. The request is to change the Land Use designation on 1.92 acres from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENISTY to MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,VERY HIGH DENSITY; and WHEREAS, the County staff prepared a Negative Declaration for the General Plan Amendment study area; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a report recommending changes in the General Plan for the area and circulated it to interested agencies, organization and individuals; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Monday June 7, 1993, and all that wished to testify were heard and the public hearing was closed; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission accepts the Negative Declaration prepared by staff to be adequate to consider this amendment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there are many social merits with a senior housing project and that alternative sites should be actively sought to support a project since there exists other properties in the Oakley area which are designated for Multiple Family Residential densities; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that there are vacant properties which are closer to basic community services and further away from heavily traveled roadways that could support the requested density increase for senior housing; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there lacks adequate buffers between the plan amendment area and the surrounding single family-designated properties; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the East County Regional Planning Commission RECOMMENDS DENIAL of the Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment to the Board of Supervisors; and Page Two Resolution 24 -1993 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all written and graphic material developed for and pertaining to these proceedings are made part of the record; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission shall sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the .same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Law. The instruction by the.East County Regional Planning Commission to prepare this resolution was given by motion of the Commission on Monday June 7, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners - Hansen NOES: Commissioners - Planchon, Andeiu and Hem ABSENT: Commissioners - Sobalvarro and Wetzel ABSTAIN: Commissioners - None I, Harvey E. Bragdon, Secretary of the East County Regional Planning Commission of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing was fully called and held in accordance with the law on Monday June 7, 1993. ATTEST: ve a don Secretary - East County Regional Planning ssion, County of Contra Costa, State of alifornia Mr'sMZPA's\ECRPC Reda Sr Hsg GPA CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Board of Supervisors Staff Report and Recommendations Tuesday, July 13, 1993 Agenda Item# Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC) •I. INTRODUCTION: This is a county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation for a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density to Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density which would support a senior housing project. The plan amendment area is located on the north side of Oakley Road, between Live Oak Avenue and Highway 4 as shown in Figure 1. II. CEQA STATUS: A Negative Declaration (no environmental impact report required) for the plan amendment was issued June 7, 1993. The Initial Study of Environmental Significance is attached. Separate environmental review will be conducted on the forthcoming current planning entitlements if the plan amendment is approved. III. SITE DESCRIPTION: The plan amendment area is a rectangular-shaped parcel consisting of 1.92 acres. The site contains a detached single family structure with related accessory structures. There are several existing trees, some of which are located near the periphery of the plan amendment boundary and some which are located within the front yard setback of Oakley Road. A new street, along the western boundary of the plan amendment area, has been built to serve a new residential subdivision, now under construction. Five new, two-story homes, which are part of the new subdivision, are located along the northern border of the plan amendment area. Kelsey Lane provides a hard edge along the western border and could provide additional access into the plan amendment area. Oakley Road provides primary access to the plan amendment area and is the southern border, while a vacant parcel is located along the eastern side of the plan amendment area. 1 i OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County Fite#5-93-EC + i NORTH ' was+•�.�r a a I"= 6w .1, + �—__ +tea --. _._�i--• + + -pw WSW mr, L F t� 4 . awwi u S ! to so 1 CM.IV.M SITE �w ' A.P 390-101 r r t � 1 + ----------------------- - __ _ + + .w ' -------------------------- en re FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP IV. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS The plan amendment area is designated as Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 units/net acre). Existing County General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 2. The existing zoning for the plan amendment area is R-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot parcel minimums). Existing zoning designations are shown in Figure 3. V. PUBLIC SERVICES: The site is presently served by all urban services which are needed to support the development. There are no public service constraints which would affect the plan amendment proposal. VI. GROWTH MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS: The plan amendment area is already designated for urban development and is within the service area boundaries for all required urban services. The forthcoming subdivision will pay parkland dedication fees which will meet park requirements. The resulting subdivision will pay an east county sheriff fee to offset costs of providing police service to the larger Oakley area. The plan amendment will not require a traffic analysis under Measure C - 1988 requirements since the proposed 50 senior housing units is well under the 100 unit threshold which triggers that requirement. Because senior housing projects such as this typically generate fewer peak hour commute trips, the project will pay reduced fees into the County Public Works AOB (Oakley/North Brentwood & East County) program for road improvements. The Diablo Water District and Ironhouse Sanitary District (formerly Oakley Water and Oakley Sanitary Districts)provides water and sanitary sewer services. The Oakley Fire District provides fire protection services in this part of the county. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard- The plan amendment is in an area which is already designated for urban development. The proposed increase in residential density will not affect the 65/35 standard since it does not involve a change from a non-urban land use designation. 3 OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County File#5-93-EC ♦ � 4 ♦ SH NORTIi HI I"- 600' LEGEND PR SL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW SH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH ML MEDIUM FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW CO MM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL J,I CO COMMERCIAL PR PARKS &RECREATION • • I I -� SH w � f�11v.M « a r" s ' w .I ! r 4 wat• e M CO SL '- - SH ♦ ♦ ML MILc --------------- 'SH �------ FIGURE 2 EXISTING COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP OAKLEY SENIOR;'HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT county File#5-93-Ec Y+NiAcc FE LAND IMPROVEMENT e0 Wq t H-1 w =CR TA 8t Q wtN tT. NORTH R-6 UV= 6 R-6 CARO, ` M Tal WTA P•7� t ; r R-6 t • i RIO A 2 R-7 P�1 n.C1' L,r. • -- ; LEGEND R-6 Single Family Residential(6,000 sq. ft.) r•. R-7 Single Family Residential _ u R-10 Single Family Residential(10,000 0,000 sqfti h,) • + ' R-40 Single Family Residential (40,000 sq. $, M29 L-1 Light Industrial - H-1 Heavy Industrial P-1 Planned Unit Development ;CHARDON T-1 Mobile Home Park p A-2 General Agriculture s * �'"-1 !!! M-22!9 Detached Single Residential R-6 4 Q FIGURE 3 EXISTING ZONING MAP VII. GENERAL PLAN POLICY ISSUES TO CONSIDER FOR THIS PLAN AMENDMENT: Housing Element &State Planning Law Considerations - On December 15, 1992 the County approved a revised Housing Element as part of an ongoing program to ensure that element meets all state planning requirements. The Housing Element General Plan Amendment was a county-initiated project to meet State requirements for Housing Element conformance and received approval from the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The County's Housing Element, as required by State Law, includes strategies to provide affordable housing to all income levels and to all segments of the County's population. The County.is required by law to have a program in.place to ensure that the goals and objectives contained within that element are achieved. Generally speaking, the County General Plan encourages the creation of new housing opportunities to serve all income levels and encourages projects which provide a diversity of living options. Although Oakley is a community which will undergo continued residential development and will generally house younger home buyers and families, the proposed project is an opportunity to begin providing affordable housing opportunities.for the older Oakley population. Fair Share Housing Obligations - An additional requirement of State Law is that local jurisdictions are obligated to provide a minimal amount of"affordable" housing. The Association of Bay Area Governments develops estimates on the.amount of affordable housing the County is expected to produce. The 1989 Housing Determination Needs report is the most recent report which identifies the County's "fair share housing need." The proposed plan amendment will.help fulfill this requirement. New Legislation, Assembly Bill 315: Redevelopment Housing Production Requirements - The California State Legislature recently passed into law AB 315. This law, in effect as of January 1, 1993, is aimed at existing and any new project areas which are created under the provision of State Redevelopment Law. The broad intent of.AB 315 is to require any new housing development which, occurs within a Redevelopment Project Area to provide a minimum 153'0 of the units at prices eligible to meet affordable housing criteria. The legislation also requires the Redevelopment Agency to monitor affordable housing development as part of that Agency's Redevelopment program. The proposed plan amendment would not only help achieve many of.the County's Housing Element 6 goals and objectives, but it would be consistent with the intent and requirements of AB 315 since 100 percent of the project would meet "affordability" criteria. Land Use Considerations - The proposed plan amendment would result in a significantly higher density than what is presently allowed by the County General Plan. Since the plan amendment area is already designated for urban development and is within all needed urban service areas to serve the proposed development, the primary issue, in terms of land use compatibility, relates to potential conflicts which may result if the plan amendment is approved. Land use compatibility issues which are created by the proposed general plan amendment relate to potential conflicts with the existing new homes bordering the plan amendment area to the north and potential visual impacts which might be created from the increased development density. In addition to potential conflicts, there are other advantages which the geographic location of the plan amendment area provides, in terms of convenient access to essential services, which would benefit the senior population. Land Use Compatibility - Five new homes abut the plan amendment area on the northern edge. Potential conflicts which might develop relate to the location of buildings and any activities which might be proposed next to these new homes. Although the specific solutions to address these potential concerns is a site planning issue, provision of adequate setbacks and buffers along the periphery of the plan amendment area should address these issues from a general plan policy perspective. Access - Ingress and egress into the plan amendment area should consider use of existing streets, namely Oakley Road and Kelsey Lane. Access should minimize turn movements onto and from Oakley Road. Additionally, there exists a vacant parcel which borders the plan amendment area to the east. Although the proposed project will likely be constructed within a year or so of receiving final approvals, access should also consider potential development of the parcel to the east, if possible. Locational Advantages - Other issues which merit discussion relate to locational advantages of the plan amendment area . The plan amendment area is one block away from one of Oakley's primary retail/service shopping areas. The close proximity to retail stores which feature a grocery market, commonly-used consumer goods, and a pharmacy provides convenience to the senior population. Because these services are within close walking distance the plan amendment the use of automobiles, for short trips, will likely decrease. 7 Minimal Infrastructure Costs - Because the plan amendment area is located in an area which already contains needed infrastructure such as roads,water and sewer lines,etc. , project costs will be limited to only providing project-related hookups and hence will lead to a lower end cost per unit. Visual Aesthetics -The County General Plan contains several policies relating to visual aesthetics. Although the proposed plan amendment will allow for a much more derise level of development, the clustered development concept should result in structures which are of similar height to the existing homes to the west and north. The general appearance of the resulting buildings, if similar in architectural design to existing single family homes, should minimize visual inconsistencies between developments. Although site specific planning matters are not an issue for discussion as part of this general plan amendment, sensible architectural design to ensure compatibility with existing homes and the provision of landscaping and visual buffers should address this issue from a general plan policy perspective. VIII. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution for .APPROVAL of the proposed plan amendment to designate the area for Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density according to the attached map and text. MrsMedWKsW orrision GPA(5.93-EC)Oaldey Senior Housing GPA SR 8 OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (5-93-EC) To integrate the Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment into the County General Plan the following new policy is proposed. 1) Amend the County General Plan Land Use Map for the plan amendment area from Single Family Residential, High Density to Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density according to Map A, attached. 2) Add New Policy 3-65a (page 3-54) to the Oakley/North Brentwood Section of the County General Plan Land Use Element- The Multiple Family Residential, Very High Density land use designation, as it applies to this property, is intended to support the development of up to 50 senior, clustered housing units. If a senior citizen housing project is not constructed, the property will be limited to a single family residential density as allowed by the pre-existing (Single Family Residential, High Density 5.0-7.2 units/net acre) General Plan land use designation. To ensure architectural design compatibility with existing and nearby homes, a visual analysis shall be provided as part of the current planning permit approval process. The visual analysis shall study and provide recommendations on a development concept which reflects the following policy direction: • A clustered building type which allows for both one and two-story, structures; and • Provision of adequate landscaping and other buffers to further reduce potential land use and visual conflicts with existing and potential residential development near the plan amendment area. The resulting project shall consider use of Oakley Road and Kelsey Lane for project access. Project ingress and egress shall be designed to minimize Oakley Road turn movements. If possible, access into the plan amendment area shall also consider potential development of the adjacent parcel on the east side of the site. 9 OAKLEY SENIOR HOUSING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County File#5-93-EC ♦ ♦ 4 4 • -Q ]FII SH NORTH HI �• I"= 6W- . LEGEND PR SL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW ♦ 4 SH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-HIGH ML MEDIUM FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-LOW c® MM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM MVH MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-VERY HIGH e,�• LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LI HI HEAVY INDUSTRIAL CO COMMERCIAL • PR PARKS &RECREATION I I • SH SH . r s ' qr•.a.n L ! S wr o.ni•.o CO SL -♦ ----- - --- SH ML -------- -------- -- ML ---- r� ' ' ASH------------ ' 8 MAPA PROPOSED COUNTY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP Communitycontra Harvey E. Bragdon Development lel It Director of Community Development Department �OSta County Administration Building County 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing '- :� Martinez, California 94553-0095 - • 5, Phone: l (510)646-2035t' •Y ^tG COUN'n C May 4, 1993 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC) : This is a proposed plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation for a 1.92 acre property from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY(5.0—7.2 UNITS/NET ACRE)to MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY (21.0 —29.9 UNITS/NET ACRE). The proposed plan amendment would support up to 50 senior housing units. Subject property for the above referenced project is approximately 1.92 acres in size and located on the north side of Oakley Road between Live Oak Avenue and Highway 4 in the Oakley area. (CT: 3020.00; APN:037-390-101). Project Description - The proposed plan amendment is intended to support up to 50 senior housing units. The project would feature a "density bonus" to achieve these 50 units. The plan amendment change to Multiple Family Residential, ilk High Density would allow the development of up to 40 units. Awarding a 25 percent density bonus will result in an 10 additional units. The density bonus provision is allowed by State Law and County Ordinance and is a means for the County to provide affordable housing units as stipulated in the County Housing Element. This is a separate, County-initiated project and is not related to previous notices regarding a three unit minor subdivision application (MS 17-93) for this same site. This is a notice of staff's determination of the environmental impact of the above project. Interested persons may contact Mr. Matt Tomas of the Contra Costa County, Community Development Department, directly by 1 letter to convey any concerns or comments that they may have about the envrionmental review for this project no later than Monday, June 7, 1993 at 5:00 pm to: Mr. Matt Tomas Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 Pine Street 4th Floor/North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 (510) 646-2035 Harvey E. Bragdon, Director Contra Costa County Community Development Department 2 OAKLEY SENIOR HousiNG GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE # 5-93-EC EwsTiNG GENERAL PIAN: SINGLE FAmum REWDENnAL,HIGH OENstTY(5.0-7.2 uNrrslNET ACRE) PRoPOsED GENERAL PLAN: MULTIPLE FAmtLY RESIDENTIAL,HIGH DENsrry (21.0-29.9 a fTSJNET ACRES) rrff W N • i v t 1 i I I J Vicinity Map CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT, 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponents: 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CA 94553 c% Matt Tomas, Senior Planner 510/646-2035 3. Date Checklist Submitted: March 30. 1993. 4. Name of Proposal, 'tf applicable: Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (5-93-EC) Quad Sheet: General Plan Designation: Brentwood Existing: Siegle Family Residential. High Density Parcel #: Proposed: Muftiple Family Residential.Very High Density 037-100-007 II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all significant, (S),answers are required on attached sheets.) 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: S a. Unstable earth conditions or changes ingeologic substructures? f b. Disruptions,displacements,compaction or vercovering of the soil? ✓ Please Note: "S" is for significant; "1" is for insignificant C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,inlet or lake? g Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,ground failure,or similar hazards? ✓ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorationof ancient air quality? ✓ b. The creation of objectionable odors? ✓ C. Alteration of air movement,moisture,or temperature,or any change in climate,either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course offlirection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or the rate and amount of surfacerunoff? V/ C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ✓ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or ✓ withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ L ExpQpure of people or property to waterrelated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ✓ Please Note: "S" is for significant; 'I" is for insignificant 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of ✓ plants(including trees,shrubs,grass,crops,and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the ✓ normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? ✓ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ✓ C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ✓ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ✓ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ✓ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ✓ S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ✓ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? ✓ 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11 . Population. Will the proposal after the location,distribution,density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? IgC- 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities,or demand for new parking? V C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns ofcirculation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne,rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a.need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ✓ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ✓ f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? *C 43?o"ate, 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or ✓ quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,or object? C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare orendangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant period of time while long-term impacts will well into the future.) c. Does the project.have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) ✓ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly indirectly? Ill. Discussion of -Environmental Evaluation See attachments. V.. Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: • 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this :ase because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. • 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Signa Date Reviewed By Date Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA Environmental Initial Study Proposed Negative Declaration March 22, 1993 Project Description -These are staff responses to a proposed Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance (no environmental impact report required) for a proposed general plan amendment for a 1.29 acre property, located on the north side of Oakley Road between Live Oak Avenue and Highway 4 in the Oakley area. The proposed plan amendment is a request to change the County General Plan land use designation from SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY(5.0—7.2 UNIT/NET ACRE)to MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY (30.0—44.9 UNIT/NET ACRE). The development concept, at this time, proposes to construct up to 40 attached senior housing units not including a 25 percent density bonus; 10 additional units would be created through the density bonus. The density bonus provision is allowed by State Law and County Ordinance if a minimum 25 percent of the units are "affordable" to selected income groups meeting the County's affordability requirements. The development concept calls for the creation of up to 50 single story, clustered units to accomodate a senior citizen population. Summary of Issues - Staff has reviewed and determined that the proposed land use change would not create any significant environmental impacts under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The plan amendment area is in an area which is already designated for urban development. There are no urban service constraints facing the proposed development as the site is within all urban service boundaries. Circulation - Traffic generation under the proposed MUTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VERY HIGH DENSITY designation does not trigger Measure C - 1988 requirements for a traffic study since it is well under the 100 peak hour trip threshold. County Growth Management Considerations - Measure C - 1990 resulted in the County adopting a Growth Managment Program which establishes minimum levels of services for the typical urban services which are needed to support proposed development. Since the plan amendment area is already contained within existing service area boundaries (fire,police, sanitary sewer, water, flood control, school facilities and parks) for the major urban services needed to support the proposal, the concerns relating to these considerations have been addressed. The proposed change would not affect the County's 65/35 Land Preservation Standard since it is merely an intensification of an existing urban designation and does not result in the conversion of land under a non-urban 1 Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA Environmental Initiaf Study Proposed Negative Declaration March 22, 1993 designation. The following are staff s responses to the Initial Study Checklist. 8. Lend Use a. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? The proposed land use change to increase the allowable residential density raises limited issues under the provisions of CEQA. The issues to consider are the related development density increase and - potential conflicts with surrounding uses. The proposed residential density and envisioned housing type will lead to a more intense development than what is now allowed by the County General Plan At this time, a single-story building type is envisioned which will be lower in height than the existing two-story single family detached structures found in the adjacent subdivision. The single-story building type is the best solution for providing easy access for the senior residents. The envisioned building masses in the senior housing project will not compete with or block existing views of the existing residences. Future CEQA review will be required when a more specific development concept is proposed. 11. Population The proposed plan amendment change will increase the amount of local population in the immediate area. One could reasonable assume an increase between 100 and 200 senior citizens and associated staff.. However, because the site is already designated for urban development the primary consideration becomes the availability of urban services needed to support such a population. Since there are no public service constraints for the plan amendment area is is .assumed that the resulting increase in population can be adequately served. Additional CEQA analysis will be required to study any special service needs for such a population. 12. Housing 2 Responses to the Oakley Senior Housing GPA Environmental Initial Study Proposed Negative Declaration March 22, 1993 The proposed request will enable the applicant and County to provide an affordable housing type which is currently in demand. A senior housing project such as this will help fill this particular niche In the Oakley housing market. In addition, the project will enable the County to implement various portions of its Housing Element and to meet some of its affordable housing goals as required under State Law. 13 Transportation/Circulation a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? The proposed plan amendment request is well under the 100 peak hour trip threshold for a traffic study and does not need further analysis per the requirements of Measure C - 1988. Traffic movement ingress and egress might use a separate access into the proposed project. There is an existing street from Oakley Road which serves the newly constructed subdivision and fronts along .the western plan amendment boundary. If that street was used to provide project access it is anticipated that the low trip generation associated with the senior housing project would not significantly affect movement onto Oakley Road This issue is identified here for purposes of the general plan amendment, but may need further assessment as part of the separate CEQA review which would be needed for forthcoming land use entitlements if the plan amendment is approved. 18. Aesthetics The proposed project envisions using three or four single-story structures which would house the 50 residential units. There will be little, if no visual impacts of the proposed project. If needed, landscape buffering could provide a more pleasing visual environment as well as a buffer between the project and existing homes to the north. These issues will be revisited if and when a development concept is formalized. MT'sHD\GPA's15-93-EC\EIS Responses 3 CITIZENS FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING (CASH) Updated Membership List for October 24 , 1991 . President: Patti Kratina Vice-President: Bev Novarina Secretary: Cheri Budesilich Treasurer: Debbie Cowger OMAC Senior Housing Sub-Committee: Chairperson Patti Kratina Members: Marie Woods, Bev Novarina, Cheri Budesilich, Ed Mintor, and Lucille Kretschmer. County Liaison Committee Chairperson: Marie Woods Membership: Marie McCoy Transportation Manager: Ray Novarina Support Membership for Senior Housing in Oakley 1 . Father Cortez 26 . Stan Planchon -2. Hugh Jenkins 27. Bernice Jenkins 3. Cathy Clausen 28. Debbie Cowger 4. Marie Woods 29. Patti Kratina 5. Cheri Budesilich 30. Barbara Fernandes 6. Tom Budesilich 31 . May Chou 7. Ralph Brock 32 . Richard Kearney 8. Donna Brock 33. Nancy Huffaker 9. Myra Brown 34 . Marie McCoy 10. Glen Scimger 35. Richard Brown 11 . Bev Novarina 36. Maureen McGlathery 12. Ray Novarina 37. Daniel McGlathery 13. Mark Jordan 38. Norma Jann 14. Lori Jordan 39. Dick Jann 15. Ralph Zuniga 40. John Dailey 16. Brenda Zuniga 41 . Natalie Kearney 17. Irene Martinez 42 . Margaret Boze 18. Myra Harrison 43 . Joseph Fraga 19. Ed Mintor 44 . Marguerite Fraga 20. Lucille Kretschmer 45. Stephen. Chou 21 . Abe Amador 46. Julie Foreman 22. Jeff Huffaker 47 . Ben Foreman 23 . Joe Tovas 48. Mike Cowger 24 . Linda Riggs 49. Joan Greenawalt 25. Joe Riggs 50. Audrey Dailey 51 . Gertie Planchon 52. Louisa Glenn • PIP 5N ON CNSI o up June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing,within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net Aare). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be It known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is. Name Address 1L t � • / 2-D Llemt , Vat, ? 0 ()n 1'401"1 1 r��� -D Vel -tnu L6n _ oA4�-fit/ June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 UnitistNet Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 UnIts/Net Acre). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land use designations remain as is. Name Address ZZs-Z ly *3 Y- V A le June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net Acre). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single farnily residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: t Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. 2 Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. s Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. y Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. S Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. 7 Hospital access is not within close proximity. y Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is. Name Address 5100 L—A. 0�!'.l.e.v 9 q 5(o I r p / .2ao� li��i✓IU.�y Gov 23CA CA lindsar n� C� l CW /l &qt t4 j, 2,2/01 io Seh LGhe a,�(e �7 , O,A- c1 S 6 �� .2 J�U //✓/�lLLt'Sa� �l il �,Q-�li<G� L//� S �f'� 6� June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated,general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 UnitistNet Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 UnitstNet Acre). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land use designations remain as is. Name Address A C' 57 4, L& V-'1 9 C CR q q X01 ye1rrnn2-. qz'(� June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing Within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather .Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land. use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net Acre).' As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and,we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with inclose proximity; Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential)land.use designations remain as is. Name Address I tAj 1 ni6 co YZ 0- r. Je,i i Wiodstr C+. k.-.1-T I ., I N-1 LT- 0T wc-,A, Q i- Zr JVAWL- - '70 .017 CCAA?C"ev r— le-1-lCy -4 kAl 6A June 6, 1993 To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net Acre). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be It known that we Individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is. Name Address 1,,Arvti Djq _ I 0. IV U G June 6, 1993 . To: East County Regional Planning Commission From:Home Owners of Heather Parc Housing Development We the tax payers residing within the County of Contra Costa, city of Oakley (unincorporated) and residents of Heather Parc housing development located on Oakley Road have reviewd the proposed Oakley Senior Housing General Plan Amendment (County File # 5-93-EC) and do hereby vehemently oppose the county-initiated general plan amendment request to change the County General Plan land use designation from a 1.92 acre property from Single Family Residential, High Density (5.0-7.2 Unitis/Net Acre ) to Multiple Family Residential, High Density (21.0-29.9 Units/Net Acre). As a home owner, our purchase of a home in this area was based on single family residential zoning (R-6) and we vehemently oppose any proposed changes. The proposed changes would: Decrease property values. A decrease in property taxes would be sought, resulting in fewer taxes to the county. Law enforcement,which is already insufficent,will further threaten our peace of mind. Emergency Medical services are not with in close proximity. Fire services with pending cutbacks will present an increased concern for safety. Public transportation is not within close proximity Increased traffic threatens the safety and well being of our children. Hospital access is not within close proximity. Our children's general safety is threatened by the proposed plan. Be it known that we individually and collectively want the proposed general plan amendment rendered null and void. Furthermore, that the now existing R-6 zoning (Single Family Residential) land use designations remain as is. Na Address 047 �144 H,P St 714 C!a to-r°ann .o� - C- V-- &4r U. 0i!'ti;6y Llclua 2330 r ✓i,✓ciSe/ Iu,✓c� 104- d,31 Npsbk LAn1,--=